MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296710491 · doi:10.1186/s12871-022-01839-7

Incidental finding of elevated pulmonary arterial pressures during liver transplantation and postoperative pulmonary complications

2022· article· en· W4296710491 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Joosten, François Martin Carrier, Aïmane Menioui, P. Van der Linden, Brenton Alexander, Audrey Coilly, Nicolas Golse, Marc‐Antoine Allard, Valério Lucidi, Daniel Azoulay, Salima Naili, Leila Toubal, Maya Moussa, Lydia Karam, Hung Pham, Edita Laukaityte, Youcef Amara, Marc Lantéri-Minet, Didier Samuel, Olivier Sitbon, Marc Humbert, Laurent Savale, Jacques Duranteau

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Anesthesiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiver transplantationPulmonary arteryPulmonary hypertensionCardiologyLiver diseaseInternal medicineTransplantationSurgeryLung transplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In patients with end stage liver disease (ESLD) scheduled for liver transplantation (LT), an intraoperative incidental finding of elevated mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) may be observed. Its association with patient outcome has not been evaluated. We aimed to estimate the effects of an incidental finding of a mPAP > 20 mmHg during LT on the incidence of pulmonary complications. METHODS: We examined all patients who underwent a LT at Paul-Brousse hospital between January 1,2015 and December 31,2020. Those who received: a LT due to acute liver failure, a combined transplantation, or a retransplantation were excluded, as well as patients for whom known porto-pulmonary hypertension was treated before the LT or patients who underwent a LT for other etiologies than ESLD. Using right sided pulmonary artery catheterization measurements made following anesthesia induction, the study cohort was divided into two groups using a mPAP cutoff of 20 mmHg. The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify variables associated with the primary outcome. Sensitivity analyses of multivariable models were also conducted with other mPAP cutoffs (mPAP ≥ 25 mmHg and ≥ 35 mmHg) and even with mPAP as a continuous variable. RESULTS: Of 942 patients who underwent a LT, 659 met our inclusion criteria. Among them, 446 patients (67.7%) presented with an elevated mPAP (mPAP of 26.4 ± 5.9 mmHg). When adjusted for confounding factors, an elevated mPAP was not associated with a higher risk of pulmonary complications (adjusted OR: 1.16; 95%CI 0.8-1.7), nor with 90 days-mortality or any other complications. In our sensitivity analyses, we observed a lower prevalence of elevated mPAP when increasing thresholds (235 patients (35.7%) had an elevated mPAP when defined as ≥ 25 mmHg and 41 patients (6.2%) had an elevated mPAP when defined as ≥ 35 mmHg). We did not observe consistent association between a mPAP ≥ 25 mmHg or a mPAP ≥ 35 mmHg and our outcomes. CONCLUSION: Incidental finding of elevated mPAP was highly prevalent during LT, but it was not associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC AnesthesiologySame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207